From: Josh Bembenek (jbembe@hotmail.com)
Date: Sun Aug 03 2003 - 02:09:46 EDT
More Discussion with Glenn:
">
>Your endless diatribe is quite intolerable at this point to me.
Then I would suggest deleting messages with my name on them. You will feel
better. But I am very disappointed that you won't show me how ID works."
You should be proud of me, I even looked up the word diatribe to ensure that
it had exactly the meaning and would create the effect I wanted. Something
about your response is quite familiar, though. Maybe it was that I said the
exact same to you, it will be hard to continue our conversation if both of
us delete all email from each other.
"Which of the sequences:
woxianzhegetuyiyang
xianwotuyiyangzhege
amhuinnsuidhe
dallenbaloch
thaancumorachthaancatbeag
ciamarathasibh
is designed? For pete's sake Or even peat's sake, ID claims to have a means
of detecting design, but NO ONE will try my test. I have offered this test
for years with absolutely no ID person or anyone for that matter taking it.
After years of trying this, I suspect I am being bamboozled when ID folks
say they have a means of detecting design. C'mon Josh, show me. Prove ID is
more than bananas."
Glenn, the best I can say is that yes, everything your talking about is
bananas. However, ID in the real world, advocated by Dembski et al, is not
bananas (unless you think bananas means credible hypothesis useful in
describing natural and perhaps unnatural phenomena.)
The problem with your errant thinking has to do with specification. I don't
care one bit about how many clever ways you can encode messages, we've been
over all of this before on this listserve several months ago at great
exhaustive length. Specification is no issue at all in biology, have you
ever heard of a consensus sequence, or an amino acid motif? Try this, tell
me whether the following is specified:
Hckaglgr
If you need a decoder, go to the blast page for short amino acid sequences
found here:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/blast/Blast.cgi?CMD=Web&LAYOUT=TwoWindows&AUTO_FORMAT=Semiauto&ALIGNMENTS=50&ALIGNMENT_VIEW=Pairwise&CLIENT=web&DATABASE=nr&DESCRIPTIONS=100&ENTREZ_QUERY=%28none%29&EXPECT=20000&FORMAT_OBJECT=Alignment&FORMAT_TYPE=HTML&GAPCOSTS=9+1&I_THRESH=0.005&MATRIX_NAME=PAM30&NCBI_GI=on&PAGE=Proteins&PROGRAM=blastp&SERVICE=plain&SET_DEFAULTS.x=24&SET_DEFAULTS.y=10&SHOW_OVERVIEW=on&WORD_SIZE=2&END_OF_HTTPGET=Yes&SHOW_LINKOUT=yes&GET_SEQUENCE=yes
and enter the above sequence. Hit the Blast button on the first page, and
then hit the Format button on the second page. Your formatted results will
detect every Cdc14 homologue currently known plus some highly similar PTEN
family members. This sequence is clearly recognized as the active site
consensus sequence of Cdc14. This is specification and we do not need to
debate whether this sequence is specified or not: when this sequence is
found, it would be ridiculous to argue that the protein does not function as
a dual-specificity protein phosphatase. Indeed, dual-specificity protein
phosphatases are in fact defined in part by this specification. If you want
more information, we have also discussed this issue at length on this email
forum, and can be found at:
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/Apologetics/NoFreeLunchReview.html
The question isn't whether targets are specified, or whether arrows have hit
a certain mark. The real issue is how big exactly is the bulls eye? The
real issue has to do with protein function, not the gobbledygook language
you entertain yourself with. The problem you have is that you are
discussing these issues on a purely philosophical, theological, and
mathematical (and gobbledygook) level. Once details of protein function are
clarified, all of this discussion will dissolve because the issue will be
settled. That's why I post articles on allosteric interactions within
proteins, Hsp90, and genome-wide deletion analysis papers. This is where
the real action is. ID and theistic evolution debate because this issue is
unsolved and sidelines observers create a big fuss trying to interpret the
incomplete data set and conclusively demonstrate that it best supports their
general Worldview position before it's best to do so. The safest thing to
do now is place your wager and await affirmation. When a general solution
is better understood, all this debate will be put to rest because we will
know how proteins have been specified and what degree of CSI they actually
contain.
_________________________________________________________________
Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sun Aug 03 2003 - 02:10:19 EDT